Heg Bad

Heg Bad- International Security
American hegemony destabilizes international security Van Der Linden, 2009 (Harry, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Questioning the Resort to U.S.
Hegemonic Military Force Butler University Libraries http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=facsch_papers) HC An important consequence of the increased interventionist disposition within the United States is a reduction of international security. Many states perceive the United States as a threat and doubt its intentions. This distrust weakens international cooperation. What has added to the destabilization is that the United States has almost in routine fashion violated national sovereignty without any formal war declaration by using cruise missiles against countries viewed as supporting terrorism. The further development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), such as the Predator, will only add to the propensity and the ability to engage in such limited strikes, as will the development of weapons located in space. It may be objected that American military hegemony does not lead to diminished global security, especially in the long run, because the United States uses its military force only to promote liberty and democracy, not to pursue narrow national self-interest. This objection reflects the deeply ingrained belief of most American citizens that their country is a force for the good, which is another major factor behind their support of American military hegemony. Military planning documents tend to be more realistic in this regard, linking Americas global economic interests and its military hegemony, while political statements on defense policies, partly aimed at the broader public, tend to gloss over the link and speak of using U.S. military force only for promoting liberty and democracy everywhere. At any rate, the historical record does not support this notion of Americas global goodness, and it is a belief that contributes to international destabilization because it facilitates the U.S. political leadership resorting to armed force unilaterally and even preventatively without generating widespread protest among its citizens. But even if we grant that the belief is largely true, the argument that U.S. military hegemony has a destabilizing impact still holds. One reason is that other countries may try to catch up somewhat with Americas relentless military spending. So even though the United States has been the greatest contributor to the large increases in global military expenditures over the past few years, China and India, for example, have also seen significant increases. A scenario that links global influence and prestige with military strength is a scenario of destabilization. Another reason is that good intentions are not always transparent and may sincerely be misunderstood by other countries. More importantly, acts of aggression, on the one hand, and promoting democracy and liberty, on the other hand, are not mutually exclusive. After all, promoting democracy and liberty does not constitute a just cause for the resort to war and countries have a right to refuse this good, both according to international law and just war theory. The good may also be reasonably questioned, especially in light of how the political establishment in the United States in fact defines it. In the triumphal language of the opening sentence of National Security Strategy of 2002, the defeat of totalitarianism has shown that there is only a single sustainable model of national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. Surely, countries may reasonably define their good as excluding American corporate investment and the consumerist lifestyle it promotes.
Heg Bad- Asymmetry Ext.

Hegemony provokes asymmetric response Van Der Linden, 2009 (Harry, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Questioning the Resort to U.S.
Hegemonic Military Force Butler University Libraries http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=facsch_papers) HC Another option of responding to hegemonic aggression is to meet it (after surrender or conventional military defeat) with asymmetric warfare in the form of an insurgency, or what has perhaps more instructively been called Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). The United States has proven itself to be superior in winning Third Generation Warfare (3GW) conflicts, involving centralized battles with tanks, planes, etc., but as the Vietnam War, which had elements of 3GW and 4GW, and the ongoing conflict in Iraq suggest, the United States is much less equipped for dealing with insurgency warfare. This type of warfare has several features that together provide a 4GW force with a fighting chance against the United States. The 4GW fighters operate in decentralized fashion, often among civilians, and so they reduce Americas hightech military advantages and draw its soldiers into more close-range battles with greater casualty risks for the American soldiers. Still, military defeat of the United States is not plausible, but this is also not the aim of 4GW insurgents. Rather, they seek to raise the economic, human, and moral costs of occupation so as to force withdrawal or political compromise, involving a defeat or weakening of the will of the occupier. Crucial components of achieving success along this line are the existence of asymmetries of will and patience: 4GW fighters are prepared to bear great costs and sacrifices and may think of their struggle in terms of years or even decades, while Americans are much more casualty averse and seek a quick victory.
Heg Bad- Asymmetry

Hegemony encourages nukes and asymmetric fights Van Der Linden, 2009 (Harry, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Questioning the Resort to U.S.
Hegemonic Military Force Butler University Libraries http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=facsch_papers) HC However, even when the United States has a clear and strong just cause for resorting to armed force, the global security costs of its military hegemony might weight heavily against its use of armed force and even make it wrong. A successful war is bound to further strengthen American military hegemony and so increase the long-term global security costs of this hegemony. In a word, new weapons might be tested and new bases may be established. Fear of U.S. military hegemony might increase and so may nuclear proliferation and support of asymmetric fights against this hegemony. The American publics embrace of U.S. military hegemony may be further strengthened and its preparedness to support American wars, including wars that the public fails to see as acts of aggression, may increase. Last, the U.S. political leadership may feel further bolstered not to play by the rules of international conduct and law if the demands of military hegemony or national self-interest require it.
***Prolif*** Heg Bad- Prolif

I/L- US heg leads to prolif Lindin 9 (Harry van der Linden, Professor of Philosophy at Butler University, 1-1-09, http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=facsch_papers&seiredir=1#search=%22From%20Hiroshima%20Baghdad%3A%20Military%20Hegemony%20vers us%20Just%20Military%20Preparedness%22 EL)
Schultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn make in synoptic fashion a strong case for the abolition of nuclear weapons and offer valuable proposals toward its implementation. What is lacking in their statement, though, is the realization that what they see as a serious setback for the United Stateshaving to deal with a much greater number of nuclear powers in the worldmight be perceived as a gain by countries opposed to U.S. military hegemony. In other words, what they fail to see (or acknowledge) is that U.S. military hegemony is a cause of nuclear proliferation and that ending this hegemony might be a necessary condition for halting this proliferation in its tracks. Skeptics may even see their plea for the abolition of nuclear weapons as an attempt to prevent that the spread of nuclear weapons among some countries in the South will restrain U.S. military hegemony.13 At any rate, what must be added to their proposals of how to move toward a nuclear-free world are proposals concerning how to end U.S. military hegemony.14
Impact- Prolif causes conflict escalation and nuclear war deterrence doesnt check Muller 2008 (Harald Muller, Executive Director, Head of Research Department (RD) Peace Research Institute of Frankfurt, The Future of Nuclear Weapons in an Interdependent World The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2008, http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_muller.pdf EL)
A world populated by many nuclear-weapon states poses grave dangers. Regional conflicts could escalate to the nuclear level. The optimistic expectation of a universal law according to which nuclear deterrence prevents all wars rests on scant historical evidence and is dangerously naive. Nuclear uses in one part of the world could trigger catalytic war between greater powers, drawing them into smaller regional conflicts, particularly if tensions are high. This was always a fear during the Cold War, and it motivated nonproliferation policy in the first place. Moreover, the more states that possess nuclear weapons and related facilities, the more points of access are available to terrorists.
Heg Bad- Prolif Ext.

I/L- US heg leads to nuclear Prolif TOU 6/13 (The Open University, from social sciences article, The USA, power and international order: Foreign policy under Obama, June 13th 2011, http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=403656&section=5.2 EL)
For the United States the strategic logic is clear small states possession of nuclear weapons acts as a counter to US military unipolarity and has the potential to frustrate its deployment of conventional forces in regional theatres. And although some analysts argue that a generalisation of nuclear weapons could stabilise the international system by generalising the principle of deterrence, such a scenario does not account for the instability inherent in the very process of diffusion, nor the increased prospects for nuclear mistakes and miscalculation. Nevertheless, both China and Russia have countervailing policy aims that serve to limit the extent to which they support US policy in this area. For both China and Russia, the strategic choices are finely balanced. Neither power can hope to attain global leadership on a par with the United States in the near future, yet both can and do aspire to regional great power status. The possession by allies of nuclear weapons (Iran in Russias case, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in the case of China) is tempting precisely because it will limit the potential for the USA to use military force in their regional spheres of influence. In addition, for Russia, strong commercial ties, particularly with respect to the export of civilian nuclear energy technology and expertise, have counted against support for stronger sanctions and UN condemnation of Irans nuclear power programme. On the other hand, both Russia and the USA also share a genuine concern over the potential for political instability and state collapse to leave nuclear material in the hands of non-state actors. Domestic political strife in nuclear-armed Pakistan shows that this is far from an idle concern.

Unipolarity causes proliferation Walt 9 (Stephen M. Walt, Professor of international affairs at Harvard University. Alliances in a Unipolar
World, January 2009, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/v061/61.1.walt.html EL) Another and perhaps related feature of the current system that accompanies the current unipolarity but is not a necessary part of such a system is the rise of nonstate actors. This important area is still lacking in satisfactory theories, and they may not even be possible given the diverse nature of the phenomena, which include Amnesty International and Hezbollah. The relationship between nonstate actors and the state system is complex, with the former largely depending on the latter and strengthening its members in some ways while weakening them in others. Nonstate actors increased before the emergence of unipolarity but may now assume a greater role, or at least a higher public profile, because unipolarity decreases the prominence of other state challengers. Nonstate actors are also likely to focus attention on the unipole, both criticizing and seeking to influence it, which could have the unintended consequence of underlining rather than undermining the unipoles position. The nonstate actors that have had the most impact recently have been terrorists. Even if many people exaggerate the magnitude of the threat,32 it has shaped the current world yet is not a defining characteristic of unipolarity. The rise of terrorism is not entirely divorced from it, however. The enormous power in the hands of the unipole encourages terrorism in part by taking so many weapons out of others hands, in [End Page 203] part by making it the target of discontent almost anywhere, and in part by its intrusive presence throughout the world.33 But it would be going too far to say that terrorism is an automatic concomitant of this kind of system. Instead, it is largely the product of the particular circumstances of the current world, and indeed is a significant menace only because it coexists with modern technologies, especially wmd.

Nuclear proliferation sparks multipolar arms racing, creating multiple scenarios for nuclear war and drawing in the United States Rosen 2006 (Stephen Rosrn, After Proliferation, Foreign Affairs, 2006,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61912/stephen-peter-rosen/after-proliferation-what-to-do-if-more-states-gonuclear EL) During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an intense arms race and built up vast nuclear arsenals. Other binary nuclear competitions, however, such as that between India and Pakistan, have been free of such behavior. Those states' arsenals have remained fairly small and relatively unsophisticated. Nuclear-armed countries in the Middle East would be unlikely to display such restraint. Iran and Iraq would be much too suspicious of each other, as would Saudi Arabia and Iran, Turkey and Iraq, and so forth. And then there is Israel. Wariness would create the classic conditions for a multipolar arms race, with Israel arming against all possible enemies and the Islamic states arming against Israel and one another. Historical evidence suggests that arms races sometimes precipitate wars because governments come to see conflict as preferable to financial exhaustion or believe they can gain a temporary military advantage through war. Arguably, a nuclear war would be so destructive that its prospect might well dissuade states from escalating conflicts. But energetic arms races would still produce larger arsenals, making it harder to prevent the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms races might emerge in regions other than the Middle East as well. Asia features many countries with major territorial or political disputes, including five with nuclear weapons (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia). Japan and Taiwan could join the list. Most of these countries would have the resources to increase the size and quality of their nuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so chose. They also seem to be nationalist in a way that western European countries no longer are: they are particularly mindful of their sovereignty, relatively uninterested in international organizations, sensitive to slights, and wary about changes in the regional balance of military power. Were the United States to stop serving as guarantor of the current order, Asia might well be, in the words of the Princeton political science professor Aaron Friedberg, "ripe for rivalry"--including nuclear rivalry. In that case, the region would raise problems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear Middle East. The United States has not been strategically affected by the peacetime arms races of other countries since the global competition for naval power and the European bomber contests of the 1920s and 1930s. Were such rivalries to emerge now, it is unclear how Washington would, or should, respond. During the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet strategists worried not only about how to protect their own countries from nuclear attack but also about how to protect their allies. Questions about the credibility of such "extended deterrence" were never fully resolved, but their urgency was lessened, in the United States at least, by Washington's decision to bind itself tightly to its NATO partners (going so far as to station U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany and Turkey). Similar questions will inevitably return if proliferation continues. In a future confrontation between Iran and Kuwait, for example, a nuclear-armed Tehran might well try to coerce its opponent while treating Washington's protests and threats as a bluff. Would heading off such challenges require the formation of a new set of tight alliances, explicit security guarantees, and integrated defense structures?

Preventive nuclear war more likely among new proliferants Sagan 2003 (Scott Sagan, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, with Kenneth Waltz, W.W.
Norton and Company, http://www.smcl.org/en/catalog/record/1153347 EL) An organizational perspective, however, leads to a more pessimistic assessment of the likelihood of preventive nuclear wars, because it draws attention to military biases that could encourage such attacks. Waltz has dismissed this argument since he believes that military leaders are not more likely than civilians to recommend the use of military force during crises. Although this may be true with respect to cases of military intervention in general, there are five strong reasons to expect that military officers are predisposed to view preventive war in particular in a much more favorable light than are civilian authorities. First, military officers, because of self-selection into the profession and socialization afterwards, are more inclined than the rest of the population to see war as likely in the near term and inevitable in the long run. The professional focus of attention on warfare makes military officers skeptical of nonmilitary alternatives to war, while civilian leaders often place stronger hopes on diplomatic and economic methods of long-term conflict resolution. Such beliefs make military officers particularly susceptible to better now than later logic. Second, officers are trained to focus on pure military logic, and are given strict operational goals to meet, when addressing security problems. Victory means defeating the enemy in a narrow military sense, but does not necessarily mean achieving broader political goals in war, which would include reducing the costs of war to acceptable levels. For military officers, diplomatic, moral, or domestic political costs of preventive war are also less likely to be influential than would the case for civilian officials. Third, military officers display strong biases in favor of offensive doctrines and decisive operations. Offensive doctrines enable military organizations to take the initiative, utilizing their standard plans under conditions they control, while forcing adversaries to react to their favored strategies. Decisive operations utilize the principle of mass, may reduce casualties, and are more likely to lead to a military decision rather than a political settlement. Preventive war would clearly have these desired characteristics. Fourth, the military, like most organizations, tends to plan incrementally, leading it to focus on immediate plans for war and not on the subsequent problems of managing the postwar world. Fifth, military officers, like most members of large organizations, focus on their narrow job. Managing the postwar world is the politician job, not part of military officers operational responsibility, and officers are therefore likely to be short-sighted, not examining the long-term political and diplomatic consequences of preventive war. In theory, these five related factors should often make military officers strong advocates of preventive war.
***Terrorism*** Heg Bad Terrorism

Power projection causes terrorism Herman and Peterson 8 (Edward and David, Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School;
University of Pennsylvania; an economist; media analyst and independent journalist; researcher, There Is No War on Terror, globalresearch.ca, 1/21, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7859, JK) If Al Qaeda didnt exist the United States would have had to create it, and of course it did create it back in the 1980s, as a means of destabilizing the Soviet Union. Al Qaedas more recent role is a classic case of blowback. It is also a case of resistance to power-projection, as Al Qaeda's terrorist activities switched from combating a Soviet occupation, to combating U.S. intervention in Saudi Arabia, Palestine and elsewhere. It was also spurred by lagged resentment at being used by the United States for its Soviet destabilization purposes and then abandoned.[26] While U.S. interventionism gave Al Qaeda a strong start, and while it continues today to facilitate Al Qaeda recruitment, it has also provoked resistance far beyond Al Qaeda, as in Iraq, where most of the resistance has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and in fact has widely turned against it. If as the United States projects power across the globe this produces resistance, and if this resistance can be labeled terrorists, then U.S. aggression and wholesale terror are home-free! Any country that is willing to align with the United States can get its dissidents and resistance condemned as "terrorists," with or without links to Al Qaeda, and get U.S. military aid. The war on terror is a war of superpower power-projection, which is to say, an imperialist war on a global scale.
Heg Bad- Terrorism

Terrorism causes investor uncertainty, counter-terrorism costs, loss of industry, and reductions to capital stock Abadie and Gardeazabal (Alberto and Javier, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard and Professor at University of the Basque Country, Terrorism and the World Economy, pg. 2, August, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/twe.pdf, JK)
This paper analyzes the effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy. From an economic standpoint, terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see, e.g., US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2002). First, the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. Second, the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty. Third, terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures, drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. Fourth, terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism.1 However, this classification does not include the potential effects of increased terrorist threats in an open economy. In this article, we use a stylized macroeconomic model of the world economy and international data on terrorism and the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) assets and liabilities to study the economic effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy.
Heg Bad- Terrorism Ext.

Occupation drives terrorists Muzaffar 07 (Chandra, Political scientist and President of the International Movement for a Just World,
HEGEMONY, TERRORISM, AND WARIS DEMOCRACY THE ANTIDOTE?, 10/9, http://static7.userland.com/ulvs1-j/gems/wlr/08muzaffar.pdf, JK) It may be appropriate at this point to ask: if American hegemony comes to an end, will al-Qaeda terrorism also cease to exist? Without American hegemony, al-Qaeda will lose much of its constituency. That segment of the Muslim population that applauds Osama because he is prepared to stand up to the arrogance of hegemonic power will disappear immediately. Besides, it will be more difficult for al-Qaeda to recruit its operatives. In this regard, it is the U.S. led occupation of Iraq more than any other eventthat has accelerated al-Qaedas recruitment drive! Having said that, we must nonetheless concede that even without U.S. hegemony, al-Qaeda may still be around. It nurses a foolish dream of establishing a global Islamic Caliphate based upon its doctrinaire Wahabist ideologyan ideology that dichotomizes the world into pure Muslims and impure infidels, deprives women of their dignity, subscribes to a bigoted, punitive concept of law, and has no qualms about employing violence in pursuit of its atavistic goals.4
***China War*** Heg Bad-China War

If the US tries to maintain hegemony, Sino-American conflict is certain Layne 8 (Christopher, PhD, Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security, International
Relations Theorist, Chinas Challenge to US Hegemony, Current History pg. 13-18, January, http://acme.highpoint.edu/~msetzler/IR/IRreadingsbank/chinauscontain.ch08.6.pdf YS) Chinas rise affects the United States because of what international relations scholars call the power transition effect: Throughout the history of the modern international state system, ascending powers have always challenged the position of the dominant (hegemonic) power in the international system and these challenges have usually culminated in war. Notwithstanding Beijings talk about a peaceful rise, an ascending China inevitably will challenge the geopolitical equilibrium in East Asia. The doctrine of peaceful rise thus is a reassurance strategy employed by Beijing in an attempt to allay others fears of growing Chinese power and to forestall the United States from acting preventively during the dangerous transition period when China is catching up to the United States. Does this mean that the United States and China are on a collision course that will lead to a war in the next decade or two? Not necessarily. What happens in Sino-American relations largely depends on what strategy Washington chooses to adopt toward China. If the United States tries to maintain its current dominance in East Asia, Sino-American conflict is virtually certain, because US grand strategy has incorporated the logic of anticipatory violence as an instrument for maintaining American primacy. For a declining hegemon, strangling the baby in the crib by attacking a rising challenger preventivelythat is, while the hegemon still holds the upper hand militarilyhas always been a tempting strategic option
Heg Bad- China War

US primacy will lead to China-US War Mearsheimer 10 (John, The Gathering Storm: Chinas Challenge to US power in Asia, The chinese Journal of
International Politics 2010, Vol. 3, 381-396 YS) The most important question that flows from this discussion is whether China can rise peacefully. It is clear from the Defence White Paperwhich is tasked with assessing Australias strategic situation out to the year 2030 that policymakers in Canberra are worried about the changing balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. Consider these comments from that document: As other powers rise, and the primacy of the United States is increasingly tested, power relations will inevitably change. When this happens there will be the possibility of miscalculation. There is a small but still concerning possibility of growing confrontation between some of these powers.3 At another point in the White Paper, we read that, Risks resulting from escalating strategic competition could emerge quite unpredictably, and is a factor to be considered in our defence planning.4 In short, the Australian government seems to sense that the shifting balance of power between China and the United States may not be good for peace in the neighborhood. Australians should be worried about Chinas rise because it is likely to lead to an intense security competition between China and the United States, with considerable potential for war. Moreover, most of Chinas neighbors, to include India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, Vietnamand Australia will join with the United States to contain Chinas power. To put it bluntly: China cannot rise peacefully.
Heg Bad- China War

China has pursued military weapons because of US military hegemony- space arms race Zhang 11 [Baohui, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Asia Pacific
Studies at Lingnan University, The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship, Vol. 51, No. 2 (March/April 2011), pp. 311-332, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/AS.2011.51.2.311 YS) Chinas military space program and its strategies for space warfare have caused rising concerns in the United States. In fact, Chinas military intentions in outer space have emerged as one of the central security issues between the two countries. In November 2009, after the commander of the Chinese Air Force called the militarization of space a historical inevitability, General Kevin Chilton, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, urged China to explain the objectives of its rapidly advancing military space program.1 Indeed, in the wake of Chinas January 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test, many U.S. experts have attempted to identify Chinas motives. One driver of Chinas military space program is its perception of a forthcoming revolution in military affairs. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) sees space as a new and critical dimension of future warfare. The comment by the commander of the Chinese Air Force captures this perception of the PLA.2 In addition, Chinas military space program is seen as part of a broad asymmetric strategy designed to offset conventional U.S. military advantages. For example, as observed by Ashley J. Tellis in 2007, Chinas pursuit of counterspace capabilities is not driven fundamentally by a desire to protest American space policies, and those of the George W. Bush administration in particular, but is part of a considered strategy designed to counter the overall military capabilities of the United States.3 Richard J. Adams and Martin E. France, U.S. Air Force officers, contend that Chinese interests in space weapons do not hinge on winning a potential U.S.-Chinese ASAT battle or participating in a space arms race. Instead, they argue, Chinas military space program is driven by a desire to counter the space-enabled advantage of U.S. conventional forces.4 This perspective implies that given the predicted U.S. superiority in conventional warfare, China feels compelled to continue its offensive military space program. Inevitably, this perspective sees China as the main instigator of a possible space arms race, whether implicitly or explicitly. Chinas interpretation of the revolution in military affairs and its quest for asymmetric warfare capabilities are important for understanding the 2007 ASAT test. This article suggests that the Chinese military space program is also influenced by the security dilemma in international relations. Due to the anarchic nature of the world order, the search for security on the part of state A leads to insecurity for state B which therefore takes steps to increase its security leading in its turn to increased insecurity for state A and so on.5 The military space relationship between China and the U.S. clearly embodies the tragedy of a security dilemma. In many ways, the current Chinese thinking on space warfare reflects Chinas response to the perceived U.S. threat to its national security. This response, in turn, has triggered American suspicion about Chinas military intentions in outer space. Thus, the security dilemma in the U.S.-China space relationship has inevitably led to measures and countermeasures. As Joan Johnson-Freese, a scholar at the Naval War College, observed after the January 2007 ASAT test, China and the U.S. have been engaged in a dangerous spiral of action-reaction space planning and/or activity.6
Heg Bad- China War

US space dominance leads to land, air, and sea battles with China Zhang 11 [Baohui, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Asia Pacific
Studies at Lingnan University, The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship, Vol. 51, No. 2 (March/April 2011), pp. 311-332, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/AS.2011.51.2.311 YS) Li Daguang, one of the most influential PLA experts on space war, also alleges that the U.S. has initiated a new space war to maintain its status as the overlord of space. He claims that the ultimate goal of the U.S. space program is to build a powerful military empire in outer space that attempts to include any space between earth and moon under American jurisdiction. Under this empire, without U.S. permission, any country, including even its allies, will not be able to use outer space for military or other purposes.20 One particular concern for the Chinese military is that the U.S. may no longer be content with merely militarizing space, which involves extensive use of satellites for military operations. Instead, weaponization of space is on the agenda. The PLA now believes that the U.S. is on the verge of important breakthroughs in the development of weapons for space war. As one study claims: Currently, the U.S. military already possesses or will soon possess ASAT technologies with real combat capabilities, such as aircraft-launched ASAT missiles, land-based laser ASAT weapons, and space-based energy ASAT weapons.21 Moreover, the PLA suggests that the U.S. is trying to acquire space-based weapons to attack targets on earth: The U.S. military is developing orbital bombers, which fly on low altitude orbits, and when given combat orders, will re-enter the atmosphere and attack ground targets. This kind of weapon has high accuracy and stealth capability, and is able to launch sudden strikes. These capabilities make it impossible for enemies to defend against. Orbital bombers thus can strike at any target anywhere on the planet. It is the major means for the U.S. military to perform global combat in the 21st century.22 This perception of the American lead in space militarization and attempts for its weaponization is a major motive for the Chinese military to develop similar projects and thus avoid U.S. domination in future wars. The PLA believes that control of the commanding heights will decide the outcome of future wars, and China cannot afford to cede that control to the U.S. As a result, space war is a key component of the PLA Air Forces (PLAAF) new doctrines. In 2006 the PLAAF released a comprehensive study called Military Doctrines for Air Force, which makes the following statement: In future wars, merely possessing air superiority will no longer be sufficient for seizing the initiative of battles. In significant ways, only obtaining space superiority could ensure controlling the initiative of war. The contest in outer space has become the contest for the new commanding heights. Seizing control of space will mean control of the global commanding heights, which will in turn enable dominance in air, land, and sea battles. Thus, it is impossible to achieve national security without obtaining space security.
Heg Bad- China War

US ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE- MAKES CHINA WAR CATASTROPHIC CHINADAILY, 11 HTTP://WWW.CHINADAILY.COM.CN/OPINION/2011-07/07/CONTENT_12854822.HTM (JC AKA. HB) The United States should prevent war with a rising China, for any military conflicts would be catastrophic for both sides and the entire world economy, said US Navy Lieutenant Commander Matthew Harper in the latest Proceedings
magazine of the US Navy Institute. According to Harper, as China's growing strength gains greater global attention, more time, energy, and money will be spent asking how the United States will counter an increasingly capable Chinese military. But he
warned that fear of China's perceived military intentions is "both overblown and unproductive for the United States and its military" and "focusing solely on Chinese military capabilities clouds the critical challenge of preventing a catastrophic Sino-American conflict". The US' immense reliance on China means that a military conflict would have dire effects noted Harper. As few people fully understand the immensity of that reliance, Harper quoted a list by James Fallows
who gives a partial run-down of what China produces. From computers, telecom equipment, medical devices, to sporting goods and exercise equipment, anything you can think of is labeled with "Made in China". Actually, any announcement of military activities would set off a downward spiral in the international stock markets, said Harper. Both Apple and Wal-Mart would see their stock prices plummet. As
approximately 50 percent of the US population owns stocks, the resulting dive in the stock market would make Americans acutely aware of just how connected their financial well being is linked to China. Meanwhile, the impact to the world economy would be instantaneous, warned Harper. Apple, along with other
technology firms that rely on China, would face disaster and Wal-Mart would fare little better. "It only would be a few days before the United States would start seeing eerily empty shelves, not only at Wal-Mart but at other stores across the country. Companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average that are dependent on sales and growth in Chinaincluding Alcoa, Caterpillar, General Electric, McDonald's, and Boeing, to name a fewwould see huge losses. The technology-heavy NASDAQ companies would lose even more of their stock-market value." As China becomes more of a potential military rival , said Harper, US strategic thinking needs to evolve
beyond the age-old question of "How do we counter?" to the real question, which is "How do we prevent any type of military conflict with China?"
Heg Bad- China War

US- CHINA WAR DEVASTES US ASSETS- COLLAPSES HEGEMONY
SMITH, CHARLES 01 NATIONAL RADICAL SOCIAL ACTIVIST FOR INTERANTIONAL PEACE, B.A IN COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY @ UNIVERSITY MONOIA, HAWAII, PUBLISHED WRITTER IN US INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HTTP://ARCHIVE.NEWSMAX.COM/ARCHIVES/ARTICLES/2001/8/14/174213.SHTML (JC AKA. HB) On the first day of World War III, the United States lost two-thirds of its military and nearly half its population, yielding superiority to communist China. U.S. orders of the day were of high alert, and there is simply no evading the fact that we were not ready. The Chinese rain of missiles on U.S. installations and homeland cities was a military masterpiece. The People's Liberation Army Second Artillery Corp achieved complete surprise, armed only with a small force of more than 300 tactical and 10 strategic missiles. Defenseless against the attack, U.S. forces in Hawaii, Alaska, South Korea and Japan were quickly overwhelmed by the guided warheads of the Chinese missiles. The bombs plunged out of the inky blackness of space, striking within seconds of each other. The rain of death fell swiftly upon a sleeping America with precise and devastating accuracy. In a span of little more than 30 minutes, China wiped out Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, Washington, Boston, New York, Hawaii, Manila, Seoul, Taipei and Tokyo. China sank five U.S. carriers, seven Ohio
class submarines, vaporized more than 200 MX and Minuteman missiles and destroyed more than 800 combat aircraft including 15 B-2 strategic bombers. The strikes also killed more than 100 million people without the loss of a single PLA soldier. The Second Artillery succeeded by striking key U.S. bases, warships and air fields with a swift and bold attack. The attack
left China with 10 remaining strategic missiles and nearly 300 tactical missiles, holding the devastated U.S. homeland hostage to another strike. Despite the calls to retaliate, sending the scattered remains of U.S. nuclear forces against
China would not stop another attack on America, nor would it stop the PLA Generals who ordered the first. There is no question that the U.S. strategic missiles could devastate the Chinese homeland. However, killing hundreds of millions of innocent Chinese citizens would do little to deter the warlords in Beijing from launching the second wave of 10 missiles while remaining hidden inside bombproof tunnels. China's
sudden and brutal attack forced America to surrender on Beijing's terms. In little more than 48 hours, China won World War III.
***Rogue Nations*** Heg badRouge Nations

US hegas bad as rogue states DAmato 11 (David, Lawyer in International Law and Business, Libya and G8 Hypocrisy: the State Must Go
The Daily Iowan, 6/14/11, http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/06/14/Opinions/23674.html, CCM)
At its May meeting, the G8 issued an appropriately preachy statement saying, among other things, [Gaddafi] has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go.That statement comes after another odious international group, the U.N. Security Council, released a resolution that uses the language excluding a foreign occupation force to green-light a foreign occupation force. This is Orwellian political euphemism at its most unabashed.For the G8 and the United Nations, self-determination always allows plenty of room for bellicose interventionism. When a country no longer fits comfortably into the openly dissolute web of compromises and pacts used to enslave the world to state capitalism, the kingpins make a change.This time, the
bosses felt that Libya was ripe for the Wests creeping paternalism. Bare hypocrisy characterizes the G8s particularly the United States admonitions toward Gaddafi, their rebukes incorporating all the usual denunciations of rogue nations. But like the states uses of the words terrorist and criminal, the meaning of rogue nation is conspicuously inapplicable to the hegemonic empire responsible for the worlds worst malfeasance. Broadsides against Gaddafis Libya are, whatever their merits, difficult to take seriously when they emanate from the United States, with its numerous wars raging on without end. Not only do the United States and its co-conspirators enjoy immunity when they butcher innocents, theyre actually applauded for their humanitarian interventions to the point that the president of the United States receives the Nobel Peace Prize. A quick look at regimes that the United States has both propped up and toppled reveals no trend with respect to legitimacy. Indeed, U.S. foreign-policy decisions would appear nearly random absent the panoply of
interests underlying its strategic conquests. Vague notions of legitimacy, arbitrarily defined by the dominant cultural force of a given age, have always lent the requisite rationales to aggression and conquest. From the Eternal Citys outward march against barbarians to the maritime powers of the Age of Exploration capturing the Occident with the permission of the Church, empire has forever been built under moral pretexts. For the United States and the rest of the West, democracy long a hollow invocation has been the rallying cry for expansion. As international-law expert Anne Orford observed, a largely economic enterprise of imperialism continues today, even after the era of decolonization. This new colonialism, defined by the exportation of Western, corporate capitalism versus old-fashioned claims of territorial sovereignty, lies at the heart of every supposedly humanitarian war. Anarchists understand that the G8 is right about one thing: Gaddafi must go. So too, though, must every apparent leader of every state the world over. Consortiums of criminal bands such as the United Nations and the G8
sanctify a corporate imperial order foisted on the globe by its most powerful states. Just as empires impose foreign systems on their outposts, the state itself forces every individual into an existence defined by servitude to a ruling class. If the G8 has the moral authority to declare that Gaddafi must go, then every free, sovereign individual
certainly has the same authority to announce to the state that it is no longer welcome in society.
Heg Bad- Rogue Nations

Rogue nations lead to east Asia nuclear war Wikileaks 10 (Wikileaks, primary source of classified materials, tension in the Middle East and Asia has 'direct potential' to lead to nuclear war The Telegraph, 7/16/11, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8298427/WikiLeaks-tension-in-the-Middle-East-and-Asiahas-direct-potential-to-lead-to-nuclear-war.html, CCM) States such as North Korea, Syria and Iran are developing long-range missiles capable of hitting targets outside the region, records of top-level security briefings obtained by WikiLeaks show. Long-running hostilities between India and Pakistan which both have nuclear weapons capabilities are at the root of fears of a nuclear conflict in the region. A classified Pentagon study estimated in 2002 that a nuclear war between the two countries could result in 12 million deaths. Secret records of a US security briefing at an international non-proliferation summit in 2008 stated that a nuclear and missile arms race [in South Asia] has the direct potential to lead to nuclear war in the world's most densely populated area and a region of increasing global economic significance .The same briefing gave warning that development of cruise and ballistic missiles in the Middle East and Asia could enable rogue states to fire weapons of mass destruction into neighboring regions.
Heg Bad- Rogue Nations

Any nuclear exchange, regardless of size, would lead to extinction Chossudovsky, 10 (Michel, Consultant for WHO, president of the International Peoples Health Council, and
Professor of economics, Nuclear Winter: Nuclear War would be an Unprecedented Human Catastrophe Centre for Research on Globalization, 4/9/10, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21840, CCM) Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would he an unprecedented human catastrophe. A more or less typical strategic warhead has a yield of 2 megatons, the explosive equivalent of 2 million tons of TNT. But 2 million tons of TNT is about the same as all the bombs exploded in World War II -- a single bomb with the explosive power of the entire Second World War but compressed into a few seconds of time and an area 30 or 40 miles across In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited. And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been. There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with
populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Thus, there are vastly more nuclear weapons than are needed for any plausible deterrence of a potential adversary. Nobody knows, of course, how many megatons would be exploded in a real nuclear war. There are some who think that a nuclear war can be "contained," bottled up before it runs away to involve much of the world's arsenals. But a number of detailed analyses, war games run by the U.S. Department of Defense, and official Soviet pronouncements all indicate that this containment
may be too much to hope for: Once the bombs begin exploding, communications failures, disorganization, fear, the necessity of making in minutes decisions affecting the fates of millions, and the immense psychological burden of knowing that your own loved ones may already have been destroyed are likely to result in a nuclear paroxysm. Many investigations, including a number of studies for the U.S. government, envision the explosion
of 5,000 to 10,000 megatons -- the detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that now sit quietly, inconspicuously, in missile silos, submarines and long-range bombers, faithful servants awaiting orders. The World Health Organization, in a recent detailed study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine), concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injufles and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-
almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. This would represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism. Unfortunately, the real situation would be much worse . In technical studies of the consequences of
nuclear weapons explosions, there has been a dangerous tendency to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism which generally works well in science but which is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake. In the Bravo test of March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. It had about double the yield expected, and there was an unanticipated last-minute shift in the wind direction. As a result, deadly radioactive fallout came down on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands, more than 200 kilometers away. Most all the children on Rongelap subsequently developed thyroid nodules and lesions, and other long-term medical problems, due to the radioactive fallout. Likewise, in 1973, it was discovered that high-yield
airbursts will chemically burn the nitrogen in the upper air, converting it into oxides of nitrogen; these, in turn, combine with and destroy the protective ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. The surface of the Earth is
shielded from deadly solar ultraviolet radiation by a layer of ozone so tenuous that, were it brought down to sea level, it would be only 3 millimeters thick. Partial destruction of this ozone layer can have serious consequences for the biology of the entire planet. These discoveries, and others like them, were made by chance. They were largely unexpected. And now another consequence -- by far the most dire -- has been uncovered, again more or less by accident. The U.S. Mariner 9 spacecraft, the first vehicle to orbit another planet, arrived at Mars in late 1971. The planet was enveloped in a global dust storm. As the fine particles slowly fell out, we were able to measure temperature changes in the atmosphere and on the surface. Soon it became clear what had happened: The dust, lofted by high winds off the desert into the upper Martian atmosphere, had absorbed the incoming sunlight and prevented much of it from reaching the ground. Heated by the sunlight, the dust warmed the adjacent air. But the surface, enveloped in partial darkness, became much chillier than usual. Months later, after the dust fell out of the atmosphere, the upper air cooled and the surface warmed, both returning to their normal conditions. We were able to calculate accurately, from how much dust there was in the atmosphere, how cool the Martian surface ought to have been. Afterwards, I and my colleagues, James B. Pollack and Brian Toon of NASA's Ames Research Center, were eager to apply these insights to the Earth. In a volcanic explosion, dust aerosols are lofted into the high atmosphere. We calculated by how much the Earth's global temperature should decline after a major volcanic explosion and found that our results (generally a fraction of a degree) were in good accor4 with actual measurements. Joining forces with Richard Turco, who has studied the effects of nuclear weapons for many years, we then began to turn our attention to the climatic effects of nuclear war. [The scientific paper, "Global Atmospheric Consequences of Nuclear War," was written by R. P. Turco, 0. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack and Carl Sagan. From the last names of the authors, this work is generally referred to as "TTAPS."] We knew that nuclear explosions, particularly groundbursts, would lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere (more than 100,000 tons of fine dust for every megaton
exploded in a surface burst). Our work was further spurred by Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, West Germany, and by John Birks of the University of Colorado, who pointed out that huge quantities of smoke would be generated in the burning of cities and forests following a nuclear war. Croundburst -- at hardened missile silos, for example -generate fine dust. Airbursts -- over cities and unhardened military installations -- make fires and therefore smoke. The amount of dust and soot generated depends on the conduct of the war, the yields of the weapons employed and the ratio of groundbursts to airbursts. So we ran computer models for several dozen different nuclear war scenarios. Our baseline case, as in many other studies, was a 5000-megaton war with only a modest fraction of the yield (20 percent) expended on urban or industrial targets. Our job, for each case, was to follow the dust and smoke generated, see how much sunlight was absorbed and by how much the temperatures changed, figure out how the particles spread in longitude and latitude, and calculate how long before it all fell out in the air back onto the surface. Since the radioactivity would be attached to these same fine particles, our calculations also revealed the extent and timing of the subsequent radioactive fallout. Some of what I am about to describe is horrifying. I know, because it horrifies me. There is a tendency -- psychiatrists call it "denial" -- to put it out of our minds, not to think about it. But if we are to deal intelligently, wisely, with the nuclear arms race, then we must steel ourselves to contemplate the horrors of nuclear war. The results of our calculations astonished us. In the baseline case, the amount of
sunlight at the ground was reduced to a few percent of normal-much darker, in daylight, than in a heavy overcast and too dark for plants to make a living from photosynthesis. At least in the Northern Hemisphere, where the
great preponderance of strategic targets lies, an unbroken and deadly gloom would persist for weeks. Even more unexpected were the temperatures calculated. In the baseline case, land temperatures, except for narrow strips of coastline, dropped to minus 25 Celsius (minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit) and stayed below freezing for months -- even for a summer war. (Because the atmospheric structure becomes much more stable as the upper atmosphere is heated and the low air is cooled, we may have severely underestimated how long the cold and the dark would last.) The oceans, a significant heat reservoir, would not freeze, however, and a major ice age would probably not be triggered. But because the temperatures would drop so catastrophically, virtually all crops and farm animals, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, would be destroyed, as would most varieties of uncultivated or domesticated food supplies. Most of the human survivors would starve. In addition, the amount of radioactive fallout is much more than expected. Many previous calculations simply ignored the intermediate time-scale fallout. That is, calculations were made for the prompt fallout -- the plumes of radioactive debris blown downwind from each target-and for the long-term fallout, the fine radioactive particles lofted into the stratosphere that would descend about a year later, after most of the radioactivity had decayed. However, the radioactivity carried into the upper atmosphere (but not as high as the stratosphere) seems to have been largely forgotten. We found for the baseline case that roughly 30 percent of the land at northern midlatitudes could receive a radioactive dose greater than 250 rads, and that about 50 percent of northern midlatitudes could receive a dose greater than 100 rads. A 100-rad dose is the equivalent of about 1000 medical X-rays. A 400-rad dose will, more likely than not, kill you. The cold, the dark and the intense radioactivity, together
lasting for months, represent a severe assault on our civilization and our species. Civil and sanitary services would be wiped out. Medical facilities, drugs, the most rudimentary means for relieving the vast human suffering, would be unavailable. Any but the most elaborate shelters would be useless, quite apart from the question of what good it might be to emerge a few months later. Synthetics burned in the destruction of the cities would produce a wide variety of toxic gases, including carbon monoxide, cyanides, dioxins and furans. After the dust and soot settled out, the solar ultraviolet flux would be much larger than its present value. Immunity to disease would decline. Epidemics and pandemics would be rampant, especially after the billion or so unburied bodies began to thaw. Moreover, the
combined influence of these severe and simultaneous stresses on life are likely to produce even more adverse consequences -- biologists call them synergisms -- that we are not yet wise enough to foresee. So far, we have talked only of the Northern Hemisphere. But it now seems - unlike the case of a single nuclear weapons test -- that in a real nuclear war, the heating of the vast quantities of atmospheric dust and soot in northern midlatitudes will transport these fine particles toward and across the Equator. We see just this happening in Martian dust storms. The Southern Hemisphere would experience effects that, while less severe than in the Northern Hemisphere, are nevertheless extremely ominous. The illusion with which some people in the Northern Hemisphere reassure themselves -- catching an Air New Zealand flight in a time of serious international crisis, or the like -- is now much less tenable, even on the narrow issue of personal survival for those with the price of a ticket. But what if nuclear wars
can be contained, and much less than 5000 megatons is detonated? Perhaps the greatest surprise in our work was that even small nuclear wars can have devastating climatic effects. We considered a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario, we found, would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case . The threshold for what Richard Turco has called The Nuclear Winter is very low. Could we have overlooked some important effect? The carrying of dust and soot from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere (as well as more local atmospheric circulation) will certainly thin the clouds out over the Northern Hemisphere. But, in many cases, this thinning would be insufficient to render the climatic consequences tolerable -- and every time it got better in the Northern Hemisphere, it would get worse in the Southern. Our results have been carefully scrutinized by more than 100 scientists in
the United States, Europe and the Soviet Union. There are still arguments on points of detail. But the overall conclusion seems to be agreed upon: There are severe and previously unanticipated global consequences of nuclear war-subfreezing temperatures in a twilit radioactive gloom lasting for months or longer. Scientists initially underestimated the effects of fallout, were amazed that nuclear explosions in space disabled distant satellites, had no idea that the fireballs from high-yield thermonuclear explosions could deplete the ozone layer and missed altogether the possible climatic effects of nuclear dust and smoke. What else have we overlooked? Nuclear war is a problem that can be treated only theoretically. It is not amenable to experimentation. Conceivably, we have left something important out of our analysis, and the effects are more modest than we calculate. On the other hand, it is also possible-and, from previous experience, even likely-that there are
further adverse effects that no one has yet been wise enough to recognize. With billions of lives at stake, where does conservatism lie-in assuming that the results will be better than we calculate, or worse? Many biologists, considering the nuclear winter that these calculations describe, believe they carry somber implications for life on Earth. Many species of plants and animals would become extinct.
Vast numbers of surviving humans would starve to death. The delicate ecological relations that bind together organisms on Earth in a fabric of mutual dependency would be torn, perhaps irreparably. There is little question that our global civilization would be destroyed. The human population would be reduced to prehistoric levels, or less. Life for any survivors would be extremely hard. And there seems to be a real possibility of the extinction of the human species.
Heg badRouge Nations

US heg badcauses rogue statesdoes not solve either Leverett and Leverett, 10 (Flynt and Hillary, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington,
D.C. and professor at Pennsylvania State University, US quest for global hegemony Iran Review, 12/22/10, http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/US_Quest_for_Global_Hegemony.htm, CCM) The United States has also been unable to solve three other major foreign-policy problems. Washington has worked overtimewith no successto shut down Irans uranium-enrichment capability for fear that it might lead to Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons. And the United States, unable to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place, now seems incapable of compelling Pyongyang to give them up. Finally, every postCold War administration has tried and failed to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; all indicators are that this problem will deteriorate further as the West Bank and Gaza are incorporated into a Greater Israel. The unpleasant truth is that the United States is in a world of trouble today on the foreign-policy front, and this state of affairs is only likely to get worse in the next few years, as Afghanistan and Iraq unravel and the blame game escalates to poisonous levels. John is equally clear when it comes to diagnosing the source of Americas world of trouble on the foreign-policy front: The root cause of Americas troubles is that it adopted a flawed grand strategy after the Cold War. From the Clinton administration on, the United States rejected [various strategic alternatives], instead pursuing global dominance, or what might alternatively be called global hegemony, which was not just doomed to fail, but likely to backfire in dangerous ways if it relied too heavily on military force to achieve its ambitious agenda. Global dominance has two broad objectives: maintaining American primacy, which means making sure that the United States remains the most powerful state in the international system; and spreading democracy across the globe, in effect, making the world over in Americas image. The underlying belief is that new liberal democracies will be peacefully inclined and proAmerican, so the more the better. Of course, this means that Washington must care a lot about every countrys politics. With global dominance, no serious attempt is made to prioritize U.S. interests, because they are virtually limitless.This grand strategy is imperial at its core; its proponents believe that the United States has the right as well as the responsibility to interfere in the politics of other countries. One would think that such arrogance might alienate other states, but most American policy makers of the early nineties and beyond were confident that would not happen, instead believing that other countriessave for so-called rogue states like Iran and North Koreawould see the United States as a benign hegemon serving their own interests.

US heg badleads to rogue states and other threats Leverett and Leverett, 10 (Flynt and Hillary, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington,
D.C. and professor at Pennsylvania State University, US quest for global hegemony Iran Review, 12/22/10, http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/US_Quest_for_Global_Hegemony.htm, CCM) Offshore balancing costs considerably less money than does global dominance, allowing America to better prepare for the true threats it faces. This is in good part because this strategy avoids occupying and governing countries in the developing world and therefore does not require large armies trained for counterinsurgency. Global dominators naturally think that the United States is destined to fight more wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, making it essential that we do counterinsurgency right the next time. This is foolish thinking, as both of those undertakings were unnecessary and unwinnable. Washington should go to great lengths to avoid similar future conflicts, which would allow for sharp reductions in the size of the army and marine corps. Instead, future budgets should privilege the air force and especially the navy, because they are the key services for dealing with a rising China. The overarching goal, however, should be to take a big slice out of the defense budget to help reduce our soaring deficit and pay for important domestic programs. Offshore balancing is simply the best grand strategy for dealing with al-Qaeda, nuclear proliferators like North Korea and the potential threat from China. Perhaps most importantly, moving toward a strategy of offshore balancing would help us tame our fearsome national-security state, which has grown alarmingly powerful since 9/11. Core civil liberties are now under threat on the home front and the United States routinely engages in unlawful behavior abroad. Civilian control of the military is becoming increasingly problematic as well. These worrisome trends should not surprise us; they are precisely what one expects when a country engages in a broadly defined and endless global war against terror and more generally commits itself to worldwide hegemony. Never-ending militarization invariably leads to militarism and the demise of cherished liberal values. It is time for the United States to show greater restraint and deal with the threats it faces in smarter and more discerning ways. That means putting an end to Americas pursuit of global dominance and going back to the timehonored strategy of offshore balancing.

A2 US heg goodcan solve rogue statesChina makes efforts pointless Friedberg, 11 (Aaron, professor of politics and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton
University, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia Norton and company, August 2011, http://nationalinterest.org/article/hegemony-chinese-characteristics-5439?page=3, CCM) As China emerges onto the world stage it is becoming a source of inspiration and material support for embattled authoritarians in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America as well as Asiaantidemocratic holdouts who looked to be headed for the garbage heap of history after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Americans may have long believed that growth requires freedom of choice in the economic realm (which is presumed to lead ineluctably to the expansion of political liberties), but, at least for now, the mainland has successfully blended authoritarian rule with market-driven economics. If it comes to be seen as offering an alternative model for development, Chinas continued growth under authoritarian rule could complicate and slow Americas long-standing efforts to promote the spread of liberal political institutions around the world. Fear that the United States has regime change on the brain is also playing an increasing role in the crafting of Chinas policies toward countries in other parts of the world. If the United States can pressure and perhaps depose the current leaders of Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Iran, it may be emboldened in its efforts to do something similar to China. By helping those regimes survive, Beijing wins friends and allies for future struggles, weakens the perception that democracy is on the march and deflects some of Americas prodigious energies away from itself. Washingtons efforts to isolate, coerce and possibly undermine dictatorial rogue states (such as Iran and North Korea) have already been complicated, if not defeated, by Beijings willingness to engage with them. At the same time, of course, Chinas actions also heighten concern in Washington about its motivations and intentions, thereby adding more fuel to the competitive fire.

Heg badCombating US heg key goal of rogue nationsUS heg creates sympathy Asfrasiabi 10 (Kaveh, PhD, sympathy for Iran spawns new world order Asia times, 10/26/10,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ26Ak04.html, CCM) Chavez's support for President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was expressed not only in terms of assisting Iran's on-going battle against foreign-imposed economic isolation but also in the broader issue of seeking a posthegemonic world order, based on horizontal relations and equality among nations, instead of the current ossified, hierarchical structure that allows Western powers to act as "kings of the world", to paraphrase Chavez in his Damascus visit that preceded a two-day stop in Tehran. In today's post-cold war context of global politics evincing proofs of a descent to a unipolar world order dominated by the West, challengers of the status quo such as Iran and Venezuela represent "heroic societies" as torch bearers of an alternative global counter-system determined to resist the seductions of western hegemony.
***International Cooperation***
Heg Bad- International Cooperation

Hegemony prevents multilateral cooperation Castells 10 (Manuel, University Professor and Wallis Annenberg Chair of Communication Technology and Society, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Volume II The Power of Identity, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_Fku1IXZ3_cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22united+states%2 2+unilateralism+conflicts+power+wars+middle+east+&ots=3zxR9aRl4n&sig=9beG24Op_cwqdXWZM2W2W1hjnM#v=onepage&q=unilateralism&f=false YT) The main challenge to multilateralism comes from the United States, particularly in the aftermath of September 11 because the United States is the only military superpower, as well as the second largest economic area in the world, and still the main center of knowledge production and technological innovation. American unilateralism, manifested in environmental policy, in trade negotiations, and, above all, in war making, introduces a fundamental contradiction in the international system. While the issues are interdependent, their management is disrupted by the deliberate continuation of US unilateralism, imposing its hard power even at the price of depleting its soft power (made up of cultural influence), and ultimately destabilizing the multilateral interactions on which the equilibrium of the world depends. As this is a key question for our analysis of the transformation of the state in the context of globalization, I will discuss it below, after reviewing some additional factors that are essential components of the transformation of inter-state relationships.
***International Resentment*** Heg Bad- International Resentment

International Resentment against U.S. hegemony Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, The Need For American Hegemony, February 20 th, 2009,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA Unfortunately, Americans begin to take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted as lengthy prosperity turns into complacency. This results in American ignorance towards growing international resentment of U.S. dominance. It also facilitates the rise of liberal internationalist fantasies of a multipolar world characterized by a balance among relative equals.
Heg Bad- International Resentment

Resentment leads to terrorism CNN 11 (Tom Watkins, cites Andrew Bacevich professor in international relations at Boston university and
retired career with U.S. Army, Bin Ladens death may have little impact on war, terror threat, 4/05/11, http://www.diligence.com/news-article/items/bin-ladens-death-may-have-little-impact-on-war-terror-threat.html) NA Andrew Bacevich Sr., a professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired career with the U.S. Army, said the raid on bin Ladens residence could have impact on the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. I dont think this means anything like a rush to the exits in Afghanistan, but I think there is an argument brewing about whether or not the tactics being employed in Afghanistan are working or not, and this might arm the people in the camp that think that large scale troop presence ends up being counterproductive, he said. But over the long term, I think his death is irrelevant, Bacevich said. What we call terrorism is an expression of resentment by Muslims directed at Western intervention, presence and meddling in the Islamic world, Bin Laden made himself the principal manifestation of that resentment and launched the most successful attack, but the conditions giving rise to that resentment dont go away just because hes going away.

Terrorism leads to extinction
Sid Ahmed 04 (Mohammed Sid Ahmed, political analyst for the Al-Ahram newspaper, Extinction!, 9/1/04, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) NA A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
Resentment causes war Washington Quarterly 03 (Steven Metz, Ph.D. in political science, BA in philosophies, MA in international
studies, Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq, 11/17/03, http://www.twq.com/04winter/docs/04winter_metz.pdf) NA U.S. strategists and political leaders also underestimated how long it would take before resentment of the occupation would spark violence. They assumed that as long as they provided basic services and evidence of economic and political progress, the Iraqis would tolerate coalition forces. This has not proven true. Even in areas where services have been restored to prewar levels, resentment at outside occupation is escalating to the point of violence. The honeymoon period of universal welcome for coalition forces lasted only a few weeks after the overthrow of Saddams regime.

Resentment in South Korea jeopardizes alliance
Washington Quarterly 03 (Seung-Hwan Kim, Senior associate with CSIS International Security Program, international professor, political scientist, Anti-Americanism in Korea, 4/16/03, http://www.twq.com/03winter/docs/03winter_kim.pdf) NA Anti-Americanism is growing at a startling rate in South Korea, potentially escalating into a serious problem that could jeopardize the future of the U.S.-Korean alliance. Although previously limited to the concern of a minority of leftist nongovernmental organizations, student activists, and some liberals, anti-American sentiments have now spread into almost all strata of Korean society, ranging from the policymaking elite in the government and the intellectuals to members of the middle class and the younger generation. Beyond its overall increase, the sources of anti-Americanism have become more complex and diverse. Following the attacks on September 11, ironically, U.S> policy toward North Korea has become another cause of popular South Korean resentment toward the United States. According to a recent public opinion poll, 63 percent of South Koreans have unfavorable feelings toward the United States, and 56 percent feel that anti-Americanism is growing stronger in the Republic of Korea (ROK) Unless Washington and Seoul work together on a course of action to counter this trend, these popular Korean attitudes could become a critical wildcard harming the future of the U.S.-Korean relationship
Resentment in South Korea risks alliance

Washington Quarterly 03 (Seung-Hwan Kim, Senior associate with CSIS International Security Program, international professor, political scientist, Anti-Americanism in Korea, 4/16/03, http://www.twq.com/03winter/docs/03winter_kim.pdf) NA U.S. policy toward the North after September 11 and the Souths sunshine policy engaging the North complicate the U.S.- ROK relationship because of Bushs and ROK president Kim Dae-jungs diametrically opposed views on North Korea. Kim Dae-jung has a positive view of the leadership of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). He believes that the DPRK is changing to ensure the survival of its regime and that South Koreas engagement policy will eventually bear fruit. Washingtons hard-line approach toward North Korea attempts to prevent Pyongyang from assisting terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biochemical weapons. North Korea is presently included on the U.S. Department of States list of states that sponsor terrorism and has a record of exporting missile technology and military equipment to rogue states, including Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Bush questions the wisdom of negotiating with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, whom he perceives as a dictator and an unreliable leader who starves his countrys people yet earns millions from selling weapons to rogue states. Bushs new policy, however, was a major blow to Kim Dae-jung, who has been pursuing engagement with North Korea since entering office. Bushs harsh rhetoric toward the North and the disastrous U.S.-ROK summit in March 2001 gave rise to the widespread perception in Seoul of the Bush administrations disapproval of Kim Dae-jung and his engagement policy.
***Middle East Instability*** Heg Bad- ME Instability

US heg causes ME instability, global spillover Hinnebusch 2 (Raymond, Professor of International Relations and Middle East Studies, The Foreign Policies of Middle East States,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OOGTyh675JYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=US+hegemon+middl e+east+instability&ots=i59gBhggox&sig=1OdLH3JCUFBMqtYIpKKPq9nTkwc#v=onepage&q=middle%20 east%20instability&f=false YT) Moreover, the Middle Easts instability and insecurity cannot be confined to the region. The September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon only reaffirm what the Gulf War a decade prior made clear: at least once per decade unresolved regional crisis spills over into a world crisis. In the latest case, the particular character of the crisis is shaped by the dominant features of the current global configuration, namely U.S. hegemony and globalization. On the one hand, the grievances expressed by Osama bin Laden and his following of Arab Afghans are a reaction against the unprecedented scale of post-Cold War U.S. penetration of an impact on the Middle East. This includes the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, site of Islams holy places, its ongoing campaign against Iraq, and its perceived support of Israels denial of Palestinian statehood. On the other hand, the resulting Middle East ferment seems increasingly likely to take the form, not just of state-to-state conflict, but to spill out of the region via transnational terrorist networks such as al-Qaida. One unforeseen consequence of the acceleration of transnational communications and transportation in an age of globalization is that, more than ever before, Middle East insecurity spells global insecurity.
Heg Bad- Econ

Hegemony causes economic collapse war empiricism proves Eland 09 (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute, Director of
Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, B.A. Iowa State University, M.B.A. in Economics and Ph.D. in Public Policy from George Washington University, Ivan, The Independent Institute, How the U.S. Empire Contributed to the Economic Crisis, May 11th, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2498) A fewand only a fewprescient commentators have questioned whether the U.S. can sustain its informal global empire in the wake of the most severe economic crisis since World War II . And the simultaneous quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan are leading more and more opinion leaders and taxpayers to this question. But the U.S. Empire helped cause the meltdown in the first place. War has a history of causing financial and economic calamities. It does so directly by almost always causing inflationthat is, too much money chasing too few goods. During wartime, governments usually commandeer resources from the private sector into the government realm to fund the fighting. This action leaves shortages of resources to make consumer goods and their components, therefore pushing prices up. Making things worse, governments often times print money to fund the war, thus adding to the amount of money chasing the smaller number of consumer goods . Such make-believe wealth has funded many U.S.
wars. For example, the War of 1812 had two negative effects on the U.S. financial system. First, in 1814, the federal government allowed state-chartered banks to suspend payment in gold and silver to their depositors. In other words, according Tom J. DiLorenzo in Hamiltons Curse, the banks did not have to hold sufficient gold and silver reserves to cover their loans. This policy allowed the banks to loan the federal government more money to fight the war. The result was an annual inflation rate of 55 percent in some U.S. cities. The government took this route of expanding credit during wartime because no U.S. central bank existed at the time. Congress, correctly questioning The Bank of the United States constitutionality, had not renewed its charter upon expiration in 1811. But the financial turmoil caused by the war led to a second pernicious effect on the financial systemthe resurrection of the bank in 1817 in the form of the Second Bank of the United States. Like the first bank and all other government central banks in the future, the second bank flooded the market with new credit. In 1818, this led to excessive real estate speculation and a consequent bubble. The bubble burst during the Panic of 1819, which was the first recession in the nations history. Sound familiar? Although President Andrew Jackson got rid of the second bank in the 1830s and the U.S. economy generally flourished with a freer banking system until 1913, at that time yet another central bankthis time the Federal Reserve System rose from the ashes. We have seen that war ultimately causes the creation of both economic problems and nefarious government financial institutions that cause those difficulties. And of course, the modern day U.S. Empire also creates such economic maladies and wars that allow institutions to wreak havoc on the economy. The Fed caused the current collapse in the real estate credit market, which has led to a more general global financial and economic meltdown, by earlier flooding the market with excess credit. That money went into real estate, thus creating an artificial bubble that eventually came crashing down in 2008. But what caused the Fed to vastly expand credit? To prevent a potential economic calamity after 9/ 11 and soothe jitters surrounding the risky and unneeded U.S. invasion of Iraq, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan began a series of interest rate cuts that vastly increased the money supply. According to Thomas E. Woods, Jr. in Meltdown, the interest rate cuts culminated in the extraordinary policy of lowering the federal funds rate (the rate at which banks lend to one another overnight, which usually determines other interest rates) to only one percent for an entire year (from June 2003 to June 2004). Woods notes that more money was created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of U.S. history. Much of this excess money ended up creating the real estate bubble that eventually caused the meltdown. Ben Bernanke, then a Fed governor, was an ardent advocate of this easy money policy, which as Fed Chairman he has continued as his solution to an economic crisis he helped create using the same measures. Of course, according to Osama bin Laden, the primary reasons for the 9/11 attacks were U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and U.S. propping up of corrupt dictators there. And the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary because there was never any connection between al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein, and even if Saddam had had biological, chemical, or even nuclear weapons, the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal would have likely deterred him from using them on the United States. So the causal arrow goes from these imperial behaviorsand blowback there
fromto increases in the money supply to prevent related economic slowdown, which in turn caused even worse eventual financial and economic calamities. These may be indirect effects of empire, but they cannot be ignored. Get
rid of the overseas empire because we can no longer afford it, especially when it is partly responsible for the economic distress that is making us poorer.
Heg Bad- Econ

Econ decline turns hegemony Chicago Tribune, 09 (Realities and Obama's diplomacy By Robert A. Pape)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-perspec0308diplomacymar08,0,4785661.story For nearly two decades, the U.S. has been viewed as a global hegemonvastly more powerful than any major country in the world. Since 2000, however, our global dominance has fallen dramatically. During the Bush administration, the selfinflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal economic weaknesses cost the U.S. real power in a world of rapidly spreading knowledge
and technology. Simply put, the main legacy of the Bush years has been to leave the U.S. as a declining power. From Rome to the United States today, the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. At any given moment, a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets. Over time, however, power is a result of economic strengththe prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics. The power position of the U.S. is crucial to the foreign policy aims that it can achieve. Since the Cold War, America has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments, seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood, the Western hemisphere, but also in Europe, Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources, but American leaders in recent years chose to pursue far more ambitious goals than
merely maintaining the status quo.

Heg Bad

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Heg Bad

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Heg Bad- International Security

Heg Bad- Asymmetry Ext.

Heg Bad- Asymmetry

***Prolif*** Heg Bad- Prolif

Heg Bad- Prolif Ext.

Heg Bad- Prolif Ext.

Heg Bad- Prolif Ext.

Heg Bad- Prolif Ext.

***Terrorism*** Heg Bad Terrorism

Heg Bad- Terrorism

Heg Bad- Terrorism Ext.

***China War*** Heg Bad-China War

Heg Bad- China War

Heg Bad- China War

Heg Bad- China War

Heg Bad- China War

Heg Bad- China War

***Rogue Nations*** Heg badRouge Nations

Heg Bad- Rogue Nations

Heg Bad- Rogue Nations

Heg badRouge Nations

Heg badRouge Nations

Heg badRouge Nations

Heg badRouge Nations

Heg Bad- International Cooperation

***International Resentment*** Heg Bad- International Resentment

Heg Bad- International Resentment

Heg Bad- International Resentment

Heg Bad- International Resentment

Resentment in South Korea risks alliance

***Middle East Instability*** Heg Bad- ME Instability

Heg Bad- Econ

Heg Bad- Econ

merely maintaining the status quo.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

Prolif Heg Bad- Prolif

Terrorism Heg Bad Terrorism

China War Heg Bad-China War

Rogue Nations Heg badRouge Nations

International Resentment Heg Bad- International Resentment

Middle East Instability Heg Bad- ME Instability